ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend.

I will note that, given the few candidates running relative to the number of committee spots available, if he did run, TFM might have a sporting chance!

I'd love to see Jimbo's face if some trolling, non-contributing jerk-off like the Fat Man came in 7th place.

Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla...

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win; while I find her alterego painfully unfunny in comparison to yours truly, Bishonen is a monster contributor (and the author of my favorite article of all time--it seriously makes me cry!); she's well-spoken (though a bit abrasive, at times), opinionated and cuts through the bullshit.

Even if she does stay "in character" during Arb Com cases (btw, I'd love to hear her responding to Virginia Slim's latest scandalous allegations of cyber-molestation in her insufferable, twee baby/cavemanspeak), it's impossible that Bishonen's intelligence and insight won't shine through the scaly reptilian schtick. I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

This post has been edited by Obesity: Wed 12th November 2008, 2:53am

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win; while I find her alterego painfully unfunny in comparison to yours truly, Bishonen is a monster contributor (and the author of my favorite article of all time--it seriously makes me cry!); she's well-spoken (though a bit abrasive, at times), opinionated and cuts through the bullshit.

A great article. Lou Cameron, author of one of my favorite childhood books Iron Men with Wooden Wings (about WW I dogfighting) briefly alludes to this 1897 attempt to fly over the North Pole in a balloon, commenting as an aside that Andrée must have discovered an early source of LSD. Which just about sums this idea up. It's even better than Robert Falcon Scott taking ponies on an expedition to the South Pole.

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

Phil Sandifer. October 2007.

"We also have to watch out, though - for fuckheads like ED and even Bagley we're, honestly, well-equipped to handle them as-is because they're so self-obviously stupid. But we have to remember, we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people.

We are huge. We are a huge fucking website staffed by people who do not know how to run the ninth biggest website on Teh Intarwebs.

We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. And I count myself in that we.

I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world."

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend.

I'll make you one if you run.

You haven't seen my photoshop abilities, but still...

Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla...

Kurt is banned from project space. I dunno if Tony knows where he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if he made a surprise appearance sometime during these elections. Not enough drama yet.

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I wonder if he still stands by that...

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I wonder if he still stands by that...

Quick turnaround:

Parts of it. I still think that we need to have some measure in place to help our volunteers when they need help. I'm reasonably convinced that there are logistical problems with the plan as I proposed it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the legal matters to take any sort of leadership role in developing a workable proposal.

I am still in awe of the power this project has developed since I joined it, and of the gravity of responsibilities administratorship entails.

Are there other spots you want specific clarification on? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have missed the gorilla.

As for the meat of his listhost post, I have no idea why the foundation would step in to legally defend its independent contributors.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 12th November 2008, 6:24am

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created?

If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness.

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

That's what's what.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 12th November 2008, 3:56pm

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created?

Actually, I would recommend that. It would be a better use of time than playing Fantasy Election, and would generally reduce the incidence of misinformed posts. You might learn something, too.

If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness.

I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all).

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

It certainly serves the purpose of exposing what wikipedia really does to the "sum of human knowledge", and seems to have a track record of doing that pretty effectively. The continual demonstration of the "wikipedian" tendency to post the first damn thing that comes into their heads without doing some simple fact checking, or learning the lessons of very recent history, is all part of the mix, I guess. Tiresome, at times.

That's what's what.

Meanwhile, "arbcom elections" are still a sad parody, Sandifer still gets away with a weak backpedal from his unguarded bravado, and "wikipedians" carry on abusing real people.

That's what's what.

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process.

(Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.)

I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all).

I did click the link. I still find it surprising.

If you don't want to read about ArbCom, you could look at the title of the thread. I'm not exactly hiding the ball here. Apparently, you find my presence psychically troubling. Fine.

I'm not sure what contributors you want. But you clearly don't want me. There's nothing to learn but a stack of nonsense from Blissyu2, PoetGames, and idiotic attacks by the owner, who makes even my least informed posts look profound. I'm tired of the snide remarks I get from a site that welcomed DL's disturbing illnesses and Baxter's puppet playhouse.

This might seem pretextual, and it is somewhat. Last straw and all.

You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism.

If so, why did Jimbo mention US (Wikipedia Review) to Rachel Marsden in his little pre-sex chat, before collecting the data with which to have his lackey JzG fix her bio?

I'm always interested in more "deep" criticism of Wikipedia than I find here. Can you point out a source? Cause it sure isn't Seth Finkelstein or El Reg. They don't actually spend enough time wrestling with problems on WP to know what's going on, there.

Come on, One. If WP has some deep and basic problem that has been totally missed by WR's criticisms for all these years, and you're aware of it, then why why the hell haven't you mentioned it?

There is 'Important' in terms of the attention it gets and its inflated power, and there is 'important' in terms of working directly to better directly the alleged purpouse of Wikipedia. I have yet to see what direct advantage it has brought in bettering articles with their decision which could not have been decided by the community, which would have taken better decisions. It's a structure which drain the time and energy of those who are still naive to think that it will improve their experience with the project and the quality of the project itself. The Arbcom does nothing of the sort, it's the village circus, or an illusion show.

It's the equivalent of the legal system, which lack of all the advantage of a true legal system. Such a system pretend to be what it is not. I could have just said that its useless, worthless...

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process.

(Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.)

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Wed 12th November 2008, 9:55pm

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it?

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it?

My best guess is Wesley Clark.

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

That's what I thought of too.

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it?

Sarcasticidealist is correct. Why One (One, don't storm off, btw! you are needed here; just ignore the oldschool WR curmudgeons; everyone else does) imagines that we will pick up on the Democratic party in-joke(?) is a mystery to me. That was an obscure one.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

Speaking of Mr. Crusher, poor Wil Wheaton! Why do these kid actors grow up looking so screwy? Don't cute kids ever make cute adults?

This post has been edited by Obesity: Thu 13th November 2008, 1:35am

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

One overstates his point somewhat - Cedric's rotten pillars come to mind as a worthy attempt to bring the Review back on track - but a mighty good point it remains. One might not like this, but recent prohibitions on identifying the real-life identities and personalities of internet pseudonyms - this while real-name contributors such as Brandt, Kohs and Merkey are attacked by swarms of pseuds - leaves us still one less thing to discuss that couldn't be equally well discussed at WP:WATERCOOLER. Really, what will be left? Pretty soon these supposedly unimportant Arbitrators will be banning people from this site, too (there was even one WR contributor - also a WP contributor, naturally - who thanked the Arbs for blocking me!)

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

I think you're going to irritate the ArbCom by choosing this course of action. If you want to ask Sandifer a question, either ask it of all the candidates, or give a disclaimer at the beginning that says something like, "I can't ask this of all the candidates because it addresses a specific incident that only you were involved in..." or something like that. Then ask your question very politely. Then, if someone gives you a hard time about it, go ask ArbCom how you're supposed to participate in community open election processes if their sanction is going to be applied so ridiculously strictly.